Physical activity in youth: prevalence, risk indicators, and solutions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the unadjusted and adjusted associations between developmental, environmental, psychological, social, or demographic factors and meeting the Health Canada physical activity standard. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Saskatoon, Sask. PARTICIPANTS: Every student in grades 5 to 8 in Saskatoon was asked to complete the Saskatoon School Health Survey; 4197 students did so. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether students met the Health Canada standard for daily physical activity and associated risk factors for not meeting the standard. RESULTS: Among the 4197 youth who participated in the survey, only 7% met the Health Canada standard of daily physical activity longer than 1 hour of somewhat hard intensity or higher. Although there were 23 unadjusted factors associated with youth meeting the Health Canada standard, only 5 were significant after multivariate adjustment: 1) their fathers were employed (odds ratio [OR] 2.29, P = .027), 2) their parents watched them participate in physical activities or sports every day (OR 1.23, P < .001), 3) their friends encouraged them to do physical activities or sports every day (OR 1.19, P < .001), 4) their friends or classmates did not tease them for not doing well at physical activities or sports every day (OR 1.20, P = .001), and 5) they played sports or physical activities with coaches or instructors more than 4 times a week (OR 1.44, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Given the low rates of physical activity among youth, we believe that a reduced list of independent risk indicators is required to focus our limited human and financial resources for successful intervention in the community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".